United States v. Matthew Buchanan , 586 F. App'x 145 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4396
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MATTHEW A. BUCHANAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:13-cr-00501-TSE-1)
Submitted: November 25, 2014 Decided: December 5, 2014
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Patrick L.
Bryant, Appellate Attorney, Todd M. Richman, Assistant Federal
Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J.
Boente, United States Attorney, Ryan K. Dickey, Richard D.
Cooke, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Matthew A. Buchanan appeals the eighteen-month
sentence imposed by the district court after he pled guilty to
knowingly, and with intent to defraud, accessing a protected
computer without authorization, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1030(a)(4) (2012). On appeal, he challenges the calculation
of his Sentencing Guidelines range, arguing that the district
court improperly applied a two-level enhancement under U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 2B1.1(b)(17)(A) (2013).
We affirm.
In reviewing the district court’s application of the
Sentencing Guidelines, we review its legal conclusions de novo
and its factual findings for clear error. United States v.
Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 292 (4th Cir. 2012). An enhancement
under USSG § 2B1.1 is appropriate “[i]f . . . the defendant was
convicted of an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1030, and the offense
involved an intent to obtain personal information.” USSG
§ 2B1.1(6)(17(A). The Guidelines commentary defines personal
information as “sensitive or private information involving an
identifiable individual (including such information in the
possession of a third party), including (A) medical records;
(B) wills; (C) diaries; (D) private correspondence, including e-
mail; (E) financial records; (F) photographs of a sensitive or
2
private nature; or (G) similar information.” USSG § 2B1.1 cmt.
n.1.
We conclude that the district court did not err in
finding that the enhancement should apply. The record
established that Buchanan used fraudulent password-reset
requests, password-cracking software, and other methods to take
control of other persons’ YouTube Channels and the videos
contained therein, some of which had been made accessible only
to friends of the persons who had uploaded them. The district
court thus properly found that a preponderance of the evidence
showed Buchanan’s offense involved an intent to obtain personal
information within the meaning of § 2B1.1(b)(17)(A). See United
States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 628-29 (4th Cir. 2010)
(providing standard)
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3